think(box) Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Marianne, I can offer some help about performance demands for various parameters that you can control vs. ones that you can not:First and foremost, simple fade transitions require the highest percentage of CPU time during P2E shows. If you use a fade effect that extends to less than 1/2 second before the next scheduled slide image then P2E will not have enough time to read and internally expand the JPG image to the bitmap that it displays on screen --- when playing on a slow computer. MP3 music requires about 30 to 40MHz of machine speed to process. Image fading is much more, in the hundreds of MHz for smoothest operation. P2E automatically adjusts the number of screen repaints when doing a fade in order to not demand greater than overall machine speed, and hence keep the slideshow playing as closely to perfection as can be.The bottom line is that your slideshow may be pushing beyond what P2E can accomodate in resource usage limitation as it displays your slideshow. This is likely to happen when there is too little processing time between image+fade and next image+fade.1024x768 is significantly less demanding for CPU speed (about one half) than 1280x1024. If the slideshow will be displayed 1024x768 then by all means use that size for JPGs. Most slideshows will play on a slower machine, but fades will be twice as smooth if the JPG is 1024x768, when compared to 1280x1024 JPG image playback. That relative playback performance is true regardless of screen area settings used on the playback computer, however the best playback performance is always at lowest screen area setting for a very low speed computer.A carefully produced slideshow will function very well on computers down to 100 to 200MHz if screen isn't set any higher than 640x480 or 800x600. For 1024x768 screen area setting, a machine should preferably have a 300-600MHz processor. For 1280x1024 screen area setting, 500MHz to 1GHz minimum is best. You certainly do not control the screen area setting for someone else playing your slideshow, but you can advise that they try a lower setting if the slideshow doesn't play smoothly.I hope that you find all of this useful in your slideshow productions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrobin Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 But, correct me when I'm wrong, when you want to project your slideshow to a large screen, as I intent to do with my next show, then you can use the fit to screen option. But what size do you make your original pictures then? Will 1024 x 768 be large enough? ..............I compressed within Photoshop at a level of 8. Pictures are about 220 kb in size. Marianne,Just a few more words in addition to the good advice that Bob and Bill and Ken and Tom and Guido have given you, and in answer to your specific question above. Since you intend to project your slideshow, it's important to consider that the maximum resolution of most of the commonly-used digital projectors is 1024 x 768 pixels. Some are less than this (only 800 x 600). So, there is not really much point using images larger than 1024 x 768. Also, I think you will find that if you compress to around level 5, then your images will dissolve much more smoothly.By the way, don't worry if the feathers got ruffled a bit in answering your questions - it's not your fault!!! We all take this business so seriously, and become so intense in our discussions sometimes, that it's not surprising that sometimes misunderstandings and differences of opinion arise. It's very difficult to reflect one's tone and exact intent in a written message without the added assistance of body language. You should see the invective on some computer forums! This one is very tame and polite in comparison!! And, let's keep it this way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrobin Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Sorry, Tom,I hadn't noticed that you had already answered the question. (I must be using too high a screen resolution for reading these messages! )My apologies for repeating your wise advice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrobin Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Bill, I think I see why my post made you so upset - I just noticed that I started out with "In all respects" when I really meant to say "With all respect" (body language would have helped out here ) I have since edited the offending post accordingly. I'm sorry if my tone gave you the wrong impression about what I was really trying to say, and I apologize for the slip. However, I still stand by the content and intent of the message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
think(box) Posted September 18, 2003 Report Share Posted September 18, 2003 Thanks Al. I just went back to read with each starting phrase: Quite a difference! Forum messaging has the unfortunate fault of most electronic messaging: no face to face interaction to observe reactions and clarify. Really though, I think it was not so much a matter of tone.Perhaps this will help explain the intensity of my position on this point: The Enlarge Image (fullscreen) PTE feature is as important to me and as common to many dozens of slideshows as the Custom Synchronization PTE feature is to you. Imagine how you would react if you had a few people saying in no uncertain terms that Custom Sync is dangerous, useless and should never be used --- while that has not been your experience or understanding and the feature is crucially important to you. I don't think you would let that advice propagate without a firm rebuttal describing your opinion and experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 Hi,I _think_ that the 1280 X 960 format is the preferred size for some of the higher end projectors.Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guru Posted September 21, 2003 Report Share Posted September 21, 2003 Probably, in next years... For now, there are very few WXGA (1280 x 768), SXGA (1280 x 1024) and UXGA (1600 x 1200) projectors, all over $ 10,000.Today's "large format" for office/conference video projectors ($4/8000) is still XGA (1024 x 760). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gérard de Lux Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 After many trials and viewings on different screens, I have finally decided to put my shows at 900x600 with no 'fit to screen' option.I have noticed that some screens do not have the best quality in the angles or along the edges, others aren't correctly adjusted by their owners (lateral or vertical shifts, pin-cushioning, barrel distortion, etc.).When projected on a traditional screen, it happens not so rarely that the edges of the screen are curved (curled?).With this size (I use 900x600 because it is the correct ratio for 35 mm film as some of my pictures come from slides), which may sound odd at first, I'm sure that the pictures will display at their best in the center of the screen where the quality is best.And even on my 22" monitor at 1280x1024, this size isn't ridiculous (I also use a dark background image to enhance the main image).Finally, this size gives the opportunity not to compress too much the original picture, thus having a good quality, and still keep the show at a reasonable weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guru Posted September 23, 2003 Report Share Posted September 23, 2003 It's not a bad idea, Gérard... As a matter of fact, the 4:3 picture ratio (800 x 600, 1024 x 768) "betrays" the original picture, if you start by 3:2 (24 x 36) 35 mm. slides or negatives. By the way, I remember that Hans HvK too, an excellent photographer and a very careful technician, chose for his shows a 800 x 520/530 format, for reasons similar to yours (and because, if I well remember, his favorite lens was not so sharp on the edges...).But why 900 x 600, and not, for example, 1024 x 682, or at least 999 x 666? Such a format could be sharper on a 1024 x 768 screen, and the second one lets again a little black border on both image sides, if you like this effect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gérard de Lux Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Yes, Guido, 999x666 is a very good idea and a good size, I'll try it.I don't go for 1024 (x 682) because, as explained above, I don't want the picture to be distorted or even cut on a side if the viewer's screen is of poor quality or badly adjusted.What I like with 900x600 is that the size of the picture is big enough for the quality while keeping the size of the file at a reasonable weight without having to use too high compression values; also, if viewed at 800x600 the image isn't too much reduced.Thank you for this advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cox Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Han's ideal size was 799/519the url that i saved Fri 2/15/02 11:39 is no longer valid -- went out with the old web site i'm afraid, where he explains why -- the effect of his telephoto lensken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guru Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Thanks Ken, you are our memory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cox Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 well i did not use my mind because i should have saved the page instead of the url -- i have his settings written with the other standard reolutions on a cheat sheet on my desk. was positive i had his comments written down about the lens ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.